This document contains details of an evaluation for a postgraduate program, including the program curriculum, teaching-learning processes, outcomes, student performance, faculty, laboratories/research facilities, and continuous improvement. It lists various criteria and sub-criteria to be evaluated on a scale of 0-10 or 0-20 points. For each section, the evaluators are to provide the marks awarded and observations justifying the marks. The overall aim is to evaluate the quality of the program and identify any gaps to help improve student learning outcomes.

1. Name of the Institution _________________________________
Name of the Program _________________________________
Overall
Marks Total Marks
1.1. Program Curriculum 35
1.1.1.
State the process for designing the
program curriculum
10
Process used to demonstrate how the program curriculum is evolved and
periodically reviewed considering the POs.
1.1.2. Structure of the Curriculum 5
Refer to SAR: Expectation in 1.1.2 & 1.1.3 is that the curriculum is well
balanced structure & appropriate for a PG program.
In 1.1.2 look at the entire curriculum in detail. It shall allow an evaluator to
identify oddities (if any) at the individual course level.
1.1.3.
State the components of the
curriculum
10
Refer to SAR: Expectation in 1.1.2 & 1.1.3 is that the curriculum is well
balanced structure & appropriate for a PG program. In 1.1.3 the evaluator
can see the distribution of credits amongst different components. It allows
him to decide if the curriculum is balanced
1.1.4.
Overall quality and level of program
curriculum
10
Overall Judgement of the experts. The intent of this section is to arrive at a
judgment on whether or the program can allow attainment of Program
Outcomes. As such it relies heavily on the domain expertise of the
Evaluator. He alone can decide if the program, as given, is capable of
leading to PO attainment. Were the POs actually attained is to be
determined in a later section.
1.1. Program Curriculum 35
1.1.1.
Process used to identify extent of
compliance of the University
curriculum for attaining the Program
Outcomes
10
1.1.2.
Appropriateness of the gaps
identified
5
1.1.3. Actions taken to bridge the gap 10
1.1.4.
Overall quality and level of program
curriculum
10
Part B-Program Assessment Worksheet
Program Level Criteria - To be Assessed by Evalutaor
Overall
Marks for
1.1
Criterion 1: Program Curriculum and Teaching – Learning Processes (125)
S.No. Sub Criteria
Max.
Marks
Evaluation Guidelines
Marks Awarded Observations of Evaluators (Provide
Justifications/ Reasons)
In case of affiliated institutions following criteria will be applicable for Program Curriculum:
In case of affiliated institutions marks will be on content beyond to cover the gaps; if any from the POs attainment perspective. It will also include the weightage on efforts put in
to cover the gaps. The marks distribution will be as given below:
Overall
Marks for
1.1
Note: In case program is able to demonstrate the compliance of university curriculum in attaining the program outcomes, then the marks distribution will be as indicated for non-affiliated institutions.

2. Overall
Marks Total Marks
1.2. Teaching-Learning Processes 90
A. Process for end semester examination, internal semester question paper
setting, evaluation and effective process implementation (3)
B. Process to ensure questions from outcomes/learning levels perspective
(3)
C. Evidence of COs coverage in class tests/ Mid term tests. (7)
D. Quality of Assignment and its relevance to COs (7)
A. Very clear and concise objectives (5)
B. Very clear methodology, articulated using technical terms indicating all
steps and tools (5)
C. Cites substantial current and good quality literature (4)
D. Clarity in design/setting up of experiment (4)
E. Benchmarks used / Assumptions made (4)
F. Interpretation of results and justification thereof and validity of the
results presented (4)
G. Overall presentation of the report (4)
A. Industry supported laboratories (2)
B. Industry involvement in partial delivery of any regular courses for
students (1)
C. Impact analysis of industry institute interaction and actions taken
thereof (1)
D. Industrial training/tours for students (1)
E. Industrial /internship /summer training of more than two weeks and post
training Assessment (2)
F. Impact analysis of industrial training (1)
G. Student feedback on initiative (2)
1.2.4.
Participation of Industry
professionals in curriculum
development, as examiners, in major
projects
10 Documentary Evidence
1.2.5. Quality of laboratory work given 20
Qualitative judgement of the experts. Are the experiments so well
structured that these can be done by simply following the given set of
instructions?" One may not learn much in that case. Usefulness of
laboratory work can be better evaluated by the amount of thought effort a
student is required to put in to complete the tasks. In that case learning can
happen and POs can be attained.
125
10
Initiatives related to industry
interaction including industry
internship/summer training
1.2.3.
Overall
Marks for
1.2
S.No. Sub Criteria
Max.
Marks
Evaluation Guidelines
Marks Awarded Observations of Evaluators (Provide
Justifications/ Reasons)
Quality of end semester examination,
internal semester question papers,
assignments and evaluation
20
1.2.2. Quality of student projects 30
1.2.1.
Total of Criterion 1: Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion 1:

3. Overall
Marks Total Marks
A. Evidence of COs being defined for every course (3)
B. Availability of COs embedded in the syllabi (3)
C. Explanation of Course Articulation Matrix table to be ascertained (3)
D.Explanation of Program Articulation Matrix tables to be ascertained (6)
2.2. Attainment of Program Outcomes 60
A. List of assessment tools & processes (10)
B. The quality/relevance of assessment tools/processes used (10)
A. Verification of documents, results and level of attainment of each PO
(30)
B. Overall levels of attainment (10)
75
Total of Criterion 2: Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion 2:
Establish the connect between the
courses and the POs
15
2.1.
Overall
Marks for
2.1
Overall
Marks for
2.2
2.2.1.
Describe the assessment tools and
processes used to gather the data
upon which the evaluation of
Program Outcome is based
20
2.2.2.
POs attainment levels with
observations
40
Criterion 2: Program Outcomes and Course Outcomes (75)
S.No. Sub Criteria
Max.
Marks
Evaluation Guidelines
Marks Awarded Observations of Evaluators (Provide
Justifications/ Reasons)

4. Overall
Marks Total Marks
A. >= 80% students enrolled through GATE at the First Year Level on
average basis during the last three years starting from current academic
year (20)
B. >= 60% students enrolled through GATE at the First Year Level on
average basis during the last three years starting from current academic
year(16)
C. >= 50% students enrolled through GATE at the First Year Level on
average basis during the last three years starting from current academic
year (12)
D. >= 40% students enrolled through GATE at the First Year Level on
average basis during the last three years starting from current academic
year(8)
E. >= 20% students enrolled through GATE at the First Year Level on
average basis during the last three years starting from current academic
year(6)
E. < 20 % students enrolled through GATE at the First Year Level on
average basis during the last three years starting from current academic
year(0)
3.2.
Success Rate in the stipulated
period of the program
20
S.I. = Number of students completing program in stipulated duration/
Number of students admitted in first year of same batch;
Average S.I. = Mean of S.I. for the last 3 batches
Assessment points = 20 X Average S.I.
Overall
Marks for
3.2
Mention Numbers
3.3.
Placement, Higher studies and
Entrepreneurship
20
Assessment Points = 20 × average placement , i.e., (P1+P2+P3)/3
Placement Index (P) =[ (x + y + z)/N];
where, x = Number of students placed in companies or Government sector
y = Number of students pursuing Ph.D. / JRF/ SRF
z = No. of students turned entrepreneur in engineering/technology
N = Total number of students admitted in first year
Overall
Marks for
3.3
Mention Numbers
Criterion 3: Students’ Performance (75)
S.No. Sub Criteria
Max.
Marks
Evaluation Guidelines
Marks Awarded Observations of Evaluators (Provide
Justifications/ Reasons)
3.1. Enrolment Ratio through GATE 20
Overall
Marks for
3.1
Mention Numbers

5. Overall
Marks Total Marks
3.4. Professional Activities 15
A. Availability & activities of professional societies/chapters (3)
B. Number, quality of engineering events (organized at institute)
Level- Institute/State/ National/ International Levels) (2)
A. Quality & Relevance of the contents and Print Material (3)
B. Participation of Students from the program (2)
C. List the publications along with the names of the authors and publishers,
etc.(5)
75
S.No. Sub Criteria
Max.
Marks
Evaluation Guidelines
Marks Awarded Observations of Evaluators (Provide
Justifications/ Reasons)
3.4.2. Student’s publications 10
Total of Criterion 3: Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion 3:
Overall
Marks for
3.4
3.4.1.
Student’s participation in
Professional societies/chapters and
organizing engineering events
5

6. Overall
Marks Total Marks
4.1. Student-Faculty Ratio (SFR) 10
•Marks to be given proportionally from a maximum of 10 to a minimum of
05 for average SFR between 15:1 to 25:1, and zero for average SFR higher
than 25:1. Marks distribution is given as below:
< = 15-10 Marks
< = 17-09 Marks
< = 19-08 Marks
< = 21-07 Marks
< = 23- 06 Marks
< = 25-05 Marks
>25.0-0 Marks
Consideration of Contractual Faculty means:
All the faculty whether regular or contractual (except Part-Time), will be
considered. The contractual faculty (doing away with the terminology of
visiting/adjunct faculty, whatsoever) who have taught for 2 consecutive
semesters in the corresponding academic year on full time basis shall be
considered for the purpose of calculation in the Faculty Student Ratio.
However, following will be ensured in case of contractual faculty:
1.Shall have the AICTE prescribed qualifica ons and experience.
2.Shall be appointed on full me basis and worked for consecu ve two
semesters during the particular academic year under consideration.
3.Should have gone through an appropriate process of selec on and the
records of the same shall be made available to the visiting team during NBA
visit
Overall
Marks for
4.1
4.2.
Faculty competencies in the area of
Program Specialization
30
4.2.1.
Faculty competency in the domain
area.
10
4.2.2 Faculty Research Publication 10
4.2.3. Faculty Development work 10
4.3.
Faculty as participants in Faculty
development /training activities
/STTPs
5
Overall
Marks for
4.3.
Overall
Marks for
4.2.
Relevance of Training Program
Criterion 4: Faculty Contributions (75)
S.No. Sub Criteria
Max.
Marks
Evaluation Guidelines
Marks Awarded Observations of Evaluators (Provide
Justifications/ Reasons)

7. Overall
Marks Total Marks
4.4. Research and Development 30
4.4.1. Sponsored Research 15
Funded research from outside; Cumulative for CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAY m3:
Amount >50Lacs 15 Marks,
Amount >40 and <50Lacs - 10 Marks,
Amount >30 and <40Lacs - 5 Marks,
Amount>15and <30Lacs - 2 Marks,
Amount< 15 Lacs - 0 Mark
4.4.2. Consultancy (From Industry) 15
Consultancy; Cumulative for CAYm1, CAYm2 and CAY m3:
Amount>10 Lacs 15 Marks,
Amount<10 and > 8 Lacs 10 Marks,
Amount< 8 and >6 Lacs 8 Marks,
Amount < 6 and >4 Lacs 5 Marks,
Amount< 4 and >2 Lacs 2 Marks,
Amount <2 Lacs 0 Mark
75
Total of Criterion 4:
S.No. Sub Criteria
Max.
Marks
Evaluation Guidelines
Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion 4:
Overall
Marks for
4.4.
Mention numbers
Marks Awarded Observations of Evaluators (Provide
Justifications/ Reasons)

8. Overall
Marks Total Marks
A. Adequate well-equipped laboratories to run all the program-specific
curriculum (20)
B. Availability of adequate and qualified technical supporting staff (10)
5.2.
Research facilities / center of
excellence
30
Overall
Marks for
5.2
5.3.
Access to laboratory facilities,
training in the use of equipment
15
Overall
Marks for
5.3
75
Overall
Marks Total Marks
A. Documentary Evidence of POs attainment levels (10)
B. Identification of gaps/shortfalls (5)
C. Plan of action to bridge the gap and its Implementation (10)
6.2. Improvement in quality of projects 10
Overall
Marks for
6.2
A. Improvement in Placements numbers, quality, core hiring industry and
pay packages (5)
B. Improvement in Higher Studies admissions for pursuing PhD. in premier
institutions (3)
C. Improvement in number of Entrepreneurs (2)
6.4.
Improvement in the quality of
students admitted to the program
10
Assessment is based on improvement in terms of ranks/score in GATE
examination
Overall
Marks for
6.4
6.5.
Improvement in quality of paper
publication
10
Overall
Marks for
6.5
6.6. Improvement in laboratories 10
Overall
Marks for
6.6
75
Total of Criterion 6: Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion 6
Criterion 6: Continuous Improvement (75)
S.No. Sub Criteria
Max.
Marks
Evaluation Guidelines
Marks Awarded
5.1.
Adequate and well equipped
laboratories in area of Program
specialization
30
Overall
Marks for
5.1
Sub Criteria
Max.
Marks
Evaluation Guidelines
Marks Awarded
6.3.
Improvement in Placement, Higher
Studies and Entrepreneurship
10
Overall
Marks for
6.3
Observations of Evaluators (Provide
Justifications/ Reasons)
6.1.
Actions taken based on the results
of evaluation of each of the POs
25
Overall
Marks for
6.1
Total of Criterion 5: Overall Marks and Grade for Criterion 5:
Criterion 5: Laboratories and Research Facilities (75)
S.No.
Observations of Evaluators (Provide
Justifications/ Reasons)